內(nèi)容提要：米蘭達(dá)警告（Miranda warning）的由來。

In 1963, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona. The police believed he had committed犯（罪、錯(cuò)） a serious crime罪行 against a young woman. The police questioned Miranda. He signed a written confession供認(rèn). His confession was shown to the jury陪審團(tuán) at his trial. Miranda I was found guilty. 

Miranda's lawyer said the trial was not fair. He said Miranda had not been told about his civil rights before the police questioned him. The lawyer took the case to the United States Supreme Court最高法院. 

On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court started that Miranda’s confession should not have been allowed at his trial. They based their decision on the 5th and 6th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These amendments say a person has the right to remain silent. A person has to right to have a lawyer present during police questioning. 

Miranda had not been told about these rights. He would have to be given a new trial. At his second trial, his confession was not used. But a former friend said Miranda had told her about the crime. He was found guilty and went to prison for 11 years. 

From 1966 on, police have had to tell suspects what their rights are before questioning them about a crime. This is known as the Miranda warning. It says, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney律師，  and to have an attorney present during any questioning. "